Stream last week: Why were the muslims hostile?

[kalauer]

So maybe an easy question: When it was decided to not kill the second child but instead force him to resign by going to war, why were the muslims fighting for the province of Coimbra hostile? I can't find the reason. It has been some time since I played CKII, but none of the rules I remember apply. I would have expected that the muslims are neutral and only become hostile when the war was inherited after gaining the kingdom.

Do I miss some basics that already existed in CKII or is this a new mechanic, i.e. that I can fight anyone who would threaten my potential land gains in an ongoing war?

Thanks!

 

[DaJay42]

CK2 already had a mechanic where someone in a 'conflicting' war would be hostile, but the exact rules for this to apply were somewhat obtuse. It looks like it's being applied more consistently now.

 

[Tuo]

Coimbra was one of the provinces León was fighting over, so both León and the Aftasids were fighting over the same title - as such, they were hostile to each other.

 

[Lordy's]

From the FAQ:

What is the stance of populist factions against other realms, and would it possible to interact with them if you are ruler of their religion and culture?
► The realities of our warfare system require all parties in competing wars to be hostile to each other. Otherwise you can end up in the extremely frustrating situation where as Asturias you have occupied half of the Umayyad's territory, the Catholic rebellion has occupied the other half, and neither of you can earn enough war score to actually win the war.

So its very consistent now, but it doesn't sound perfect. In particular, when your ally/friend declared a war on the same person, you should not turn hostile if you don't compete for the same land. At the same time, their argument about a stalemate cannot be neglected.

 

[Battlex]

From the FAQ:

So its very consistent now, but it doesn't sound perfect. In particular, when your ally/friend declared a war on the same person, you should not turn hostile if you don't compete for the same land. At the same time, their argument about a stalemate cannot be neglected.

As the peace treaty is either war reps, white peace, or gain title/subject, there isn't really a way to partition and peace out like you have in eu4 when two seperate tags go to war vs 1 tag

 

[Zhetone]

if it's so that two people fighting for the same province will be hostile, it's very good news. It got to be obnoxious when you declared a war and someone else did, and then they occupied provinces and you could do nothing about it. Now you can kick them out and assert your dominance (plus, it means a bit more caution if a bigger kingdom is fighting for land you want; you can't just run in, siege it first and then win the whole war)

 

[kalauer]

Thanks you all. Sounds promising.